Introduction
Who wins and who loses? The one who wins has reflected his or her ability to influence the behavior of others. This is power. As defined by Robert Dahl, a leading political theorist, power is the ability of one to get another to do something he or she would not otherwise do as a result of the will imposed by the other, where adherence is driven by obligation rather than force. Power is dynamic, relative, situational and multidimensional. According to Steve Lukes, there are three dimensions of power. The first dimension of power is intentional and active, and involves decision-making. The second dimension of power focuses on conflicts that are observable, and involves non-decision-making power. The third dimension of power involves shaping perceptions, cognitions and preferences, and is an ideological power. The first dimension of power is a pluralist view of power. The focus in on behavior and decision making. This dimension of power can be evaluated through observing the its exertion. The power is reflected through concrete decisions. The second dimension of power focuses on control through avenues other than decision making. This dimension concentrates on observable conflicts. The third dimension of power focuses on domination and acquiescence. It is Lukes’ Third Dimension of Power that has provided influence and significance in the study of political theory.
Explanatory significance
Something that has explanatory significance provides importance to the clarification of an issue. Lukes in, Power, A Radical View, defined power, and in his presentation of the Third Dimension of Power, attempted to explain what he believed to be the most common source of power. The third dimension of power is a source of power that is not directly manifested, like the first and second dimensions of power, but rather a source of power that is deceptive, yet supreme. Lukes’ analysis of power is theoretical and empirical and has provided further avenues for the study of power. Lukes’ study involved an analysis of who wins and who loses in the political arena. The third dimension of power, according to Lukes, involves the calculated and deliberate intent of those with power to manipulate the thoughts and wants of those who do not have power. This is a construct of agency and domination. Those with power use it to control others.
The Third Dimension of Power exists when an individual has the power over the wishes and thoughts of others, which includes making them want things that are not in their own self-interest. Latent and observable conflicts are relevant. The assessment of power includes interests of those without power that are both real and subjective. In theory, this is a deceptive use of power. In today’s society, we see this type of power reflected in many situations. Capitalism decision makers have convinced the working class that capitalism is in their best interest. This concept is reflected in the election of George W. Bush and, more recently, Donald Trump, where the working class voted for the conservative politician who ran a campaign that opposed to their real interests.
Critical significance
Lukes declared that the prior models of power were incomplete because they lacked the third dimension of power. These models were presented by political theorists Dahl in 1957, and Bacharach and Baratz in 1962. Robert Dahl, explained in his work, The Concept of Power, that there is one dimension to power. Under this pluralist theory, power is exerted to influence the actions of others to coincide with the preference of the one with power. This dimension of power defines power as only an observable influence where awareness of influence is present. Obedience is the key element in Dahl’s theory. His argument is that power includes the ability to make another do something that he or she would not otherwise do. This theory of power provides a simplified analysis of power because it includes only that which is observed and can be measured.
Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz (1962) developed an elitist theory on power as a response to Dahl. It is intended as a critique of Dahl’s main premise on power. Dahl, based on his pluralist leanings, assumed that decision making was open and democratic and all interests of society are equally represented. Bacharach and Baratz explained in their work, Two Faces of Power, that power has two faces. The first face is that put forth by Dahl. It focuses on the exercise of power in decision making. It is overt. The second face is covert and restrictive but can inform the first face. It involves the prevention of decision-making, or non-decision-making. They posit that influence is used to limit the scope of discussion or to prevent conflicts from ever occurring. This strategy is used in order to mobilize bias and prevent discussion on matters of unimportance. Power is restrictive and acts to avoid conflict. Bachrach and Baratz called this the process of non-decision-making. It prevents power conflicts. Not only is power exercised when one partakes in the making of decisions that affect another. But power is exerted when one applies his energies to producing or supporting values and practices that limit the “opportunity of the political process to public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively” safe for the one. To the degree that he is successful in accomplishing this, the other is excluded from bringing up any issues that might harm the already set preferences . Power and control rests with those determining the issues, not those who make the decisions. This is true because those who are making decisions could simply be following an agenda already set by others. (1962, p. 948). Those without power are prevented from furthering their own interests. Status quo maintenance is the goal of the exercise of power as those with the power make the rules.
Steven Lukes (1974) expanded on Bachrach and Baratz’s approach to power. Lukes introduced a third latent dimension of power that went beyond the overt first dimension and the covert second dimension of power. The first dimension addressed open political processes and preferences. The second dimension addressed political processes through conflict, or the lack thereof. Lukes’ third dimension rests instead of on overt or overt decision making, on latent or ideological power, where power involves the ability to influence the interests of others. This dimension is difficult to identify since it would require those who are being influenced to recognize the existence of the influence over them.
Lukes new third dimension of power proclaimed that there is an ability to create and adjust an individual’s perceptions of his or her own real interests. Those with power have the ability to control those without power by forcing them to misperceive their own real interests. This is distinguished from the first and second dimensions of power because it does not assume that the agent to able to identify and articulate his or her own interests. Thus, with the exercise of power in the third dimension, even a slave would be content with exploitation.
Lukes has been extensively criticized on his view of the third dimension of power. The criticisms are that it placed the assessment of power beyond objective analysis, it prevented agreement on the concept of power among theorists, and it precluded the idea that power could be exercised legitimately. Lukes addressed each of these criticisms indirectly in his revised edition of Power: A Radical View published in 2005.
The inability to objectively analyze power has been a common critique of Lukes’ analysis. Power becomes difficult to trace under the third dimension of power because it is latent. Those who are subject to the power are not aware of their own interests, thus, the interests are difficult to trace as they are either inexpressible or unrecognizable. The lack of awareness would make it difficult to analyze. Identifying inaction as an influence of power, determining whether an exercise of power is unconscious and assessing the collective exercise of power are all problems in identification of the exercise of power in the third dimension of power. Lukes does admit that latent power is difficult to measure empirically; however, it must be considered when constructing a hypothesis based upon the first or second dimension of power. With the consideration of each dimension, a thorough evaluation of power is more likely to occur.
Critics alleged that Lukes’ theory precludes the legitimate exercise of power because it would only allow for negative consequences of power. However, Lukes explains that the legitimate exercise of power does not only occur in the third dimension. In fact, he claims that there is no reason to raise the third dimension of power when examining the real interests held by those being succumbed to power or to consider the influence of the use of power over them because the relationship can be analyzed under the first or second dimension of power. The third dimension of power is invoked when there is no observable or recognizable conflict between the preferences being stated by the powerful and those held by the victim. Manipulation of preference occurring under the third dimension of power must be considered when necessary.
Critics also claim that with the introduction of the third dimension of power, the disagreement on the concept of power among political theorists have broadened. However, this concept should not be a criticism. Power exists as it is conceived. Disagreement on the definition expands the understanding of power because the level of power and the root of power depends exclusively on how it is perceived.
Conclusion
Power is dynamic, relative, situational and multidimensional. According to Steve Lukes, there are three dimensions of power. The first dimension of power is intentional and active, and involves decision-making. The second dimension of power focuses on conflicts that are observable, and involves non-decision-making power. The third dimension of power involves shaping perceptions, cognitions and preferences, and is an ideological power. The first dimension of power is a pluralist view of power. The focus in on behavior and decision making. This dimension of power can be evaluated through observing the its exertion. The power is reflected through concrete decisions. The second dimension of power focuses on control through avenues other than decision making. This dimension concentrates on observable conflicts. The third dimension of power focuses on domination and acquiescence. It is Lukes’ Third Dimension of Power that has provided influence and significance in the study of political theory.
Lukes’ third dimension of power is a source of power that is not directly manifested, like the first and second dimensions of power, but rather a source of power that is deceptive, yet supreme. Lukes’ analysis of power is theoretical and empirical and has provided further avenues for the study of power. The third dimension of power involves the calculated and deliberate intent of those with power to manipulate the thoughts and wants of those who do not have power. This is a construct of agency and domination. Those with power use it to control others. The Third Dimension of Power exists when an individual has the power over the wishes and thoughts of others, which includes making them want things that are not in their own self-interest. Latent and observable conflicts are relevant. The assessment of power includes interests of those without power that are both real and subjective. In theory, this is a deceptive use of power.
Lukes declared that the prior models of power were incomplete because they lacked the third dimension of power. These models were presented by political theorists Dahl in 1957, and Bacharach and Baratz in 1962. Robert Dahl, explained in his work, The Concept of Power, that there is one dimension to power. Under this pluralist theory, power is exerted to influence the actions of others to coincide with the preference of the one with power. This dimension of power defines power as only an observable influence where awareness of influence is present. Obedience is the key element in Dahl’s theory. His argument is that power includes the ability to make another do something that he or she would not otherwise do. This theory of power provides a simplified analysis of power because it includes only that which is observed and can be measured. Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz (1962) developed an elitist theory on power as a response to Dahl. It is intended as a critique of Dahl’s main premise on power. Dahl, based on his pluralist leanings, assumed that decision making was open and democratic and all interests of society are equally represented. Bacharach and Baratz explained in their work, Two Faces of Power, that power has two faces. The first face is that put forth by Dahl. It focuses on the exercise of power in decision making. It is overt. The second face is covert and restrictive but can inform the first face. It involves the prevention of decision-making, or non-decision-making. They posit that influence is used to limit the scope of discussion or to prevent conflicts from ever occurring. Lukes (1974) expanded on Bachrach and Baratz’s approach to power. Lukes introduced a third latent dimension of power that went beyond the overt first dimension and the covert second dimension of power. Lukes new third dimension of power proclaimed that there is an ability to create and adjust an individual’s perceptions of his or her own real interests. Those with power have the ability to control those without power by forcing them to misperceive their own real interests. This is distinguished from the first and second dimensions of power because it does not assume that the agent to able to identify and articulate his or her own interests. Thus, with the exercise of power in the third dimension, even a slave would be content with exploitation.
Lukes has been extensively criticized on his view of the third dimension of power. The criticisms are that it placed the assessment of power beyond objective analysis, it prevented agreement on the concept of power among theorists, and it precluded the idea that power could be exercised legitimately. Lukes addressed each of these criticisms indirectly in his revised edition of Power: A Radical View published in 2005. The inability to objectively analyze power has been a common critique of Lukes’ analysis. Lukes does admit that latent power is difficult to measure empirically; however, it must be considered when constructing a hypothesis based upon the first or second dimension of power. With the consideration of each dimension, a thorough evaluation of power is more likely to occur. Critics alleged that Lukes’ theory precludes the legitimate exercise of power because it would only allow for negative consequences of power. However, Lukes explains that the legitimate exercise of power does not only occur in the third dimension. In fact, he claims that there is no reason to raise the third dimension of power when examining the real interests held by those being succumbed to power or to consider the influence of the use of power over them because the relationship can be analyzed under the first or second dimension of power. Critics also claim that with the introduction of the third dimension of power, the disagreement on the concept of power among political theorists have broadened. However, this concept should not be a criticism. Power exists as it is conceived. Disagreement on the definition expands the understanding of power because the level of power and the root of power depends exclusively on how it is perceived.
References
Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M. S., 1962. Two Faces of Power. The American Political Science Review, 56(4), pp. 947-952.
Dahl, R., 1957. The Concept of Power. Behavioral Science, pp. 201-215.
Dowding, K., 2006. Three-Dimensional Power: A Discussion of Steven Lukes': A Radical View. Political Studies Review, pp. 136-145.
Hay, C., 1997. Divided by a common language: political theory and the concept of power. Politics, 17(1), pp. 45-52.
Heyward, C., 2007. Revisiting the radical view: Power, real interests and the difficulty of separating analysis from critique. Politics, 27(1), pp. 48-54.
Lorenzi, M., 2006. Power: A Radical View by Steven Lukes. Crossroads, pp. 87-95.
Lukes, S., 1974. A Radical View. London: s.n.
Wiegmann, M., 2014. Lukes' Three Faces of Power: Their Importance for the Policy Process. Public Management and Public Policy.
